Contextual Barriers to Mobile Health Technology in African Countries

Yvonne O’ Connor, PhD1, John O’ Donoghue, PhD2
Health Information Systems Research Centre, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland; 2Global eHealth Unit, Imperial College
London, UK
Corresponding Author: [email protected]
Journal MTM 4:1:3134, 2015
On a global scale, healthcare practitioners are now
beginning to move from traditional desktop-based
computer technologies towards mobile computing
environments1. Consequently, such environments
have received immense attention from both academia and industry, in order to explore these promising opportunities, apparent limitations, and
implications for both theory and practice2. The
application of mobile IT within a medical context,
referred to as mobile health or mHealth, has
revolutionised the delivery of healthcare services
as mobile technologies offer the potential of retrieving, modifying and entering patient-related data/
information at the point-of-care. As a component of
the larger health informatics domain mHealth may
be referred as all portable computing devices (e.g.
mobile phones, mobile clinical assistants and medical sensors) used in a healthcare context to support
the delivery of healthcare services.
The usefulness of implementing IT in healthcare is
reflected in current eHealth initiatives in resourcepoor settings (e.g. Baobab Health in Malawi, MPedigree in Ghana, Nigeria and Kenya; Cell-Life in
South Africa). In recent years attempts have being
made to digitise WHO/UNICEF paper-based clinical guidelines when delivering paediatric healthcare
services, namely: Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) and Community Case Management (CCM). Both IMCI and CCM are stepwise
and structured approaches, employed by Community Health Workers (CHW), towards reducing
death, illness and disability while promoting improved growth and development among children
under five years of age3,4. Digitising the IMCI and
CCM guidelines offer profound opportunities to
CHW (also referred to as Health Surveillance
Assistants in Malawi, Africa) in terms of improving
adherence to clinical guidelines, offering instant
access to patient data independent of location and
time and facilitating drug ordering via Short
Message Service (SMS)5.
However, introducing mobile technology in a medical context within resource-poor communities is
not without its challenges6. One obstacle faced by
mHealth users is lack of user acceptance of the
technology. Common factors which influence the
decision making process of accepting mobile technology in medicine may include perceived usefulness, perceived ease-of-use of the technological
tool7, performance expectancy, effort expectancy,
social influence, facilitating conditions8. Arguably,
the most imperative barrier faced by mHealth users
in Africa is that of a contextual nature. The
underlying premise behind this argument is that
many mHealth solutions for use in developing
countries are often developed in western societies.
Such solutions have been criticised for failing to
recognise the unique contextual factors associated
with developing regions9. Contextual factors reflect
external or driving elements that comprise the
environment or conditions for decision making
tasks10 and as a result, such factors can vary across
populations and industries. Cultural, economic,
political and cognitive dimensions are contextual
factors which could influence how end users interact
VOL. 4 | ISSUE 1 | JANUARY 2015 31
Figure 1: Contextual factors which should be incorporated into mHealth solutions
with mobile technology in medicine (referenced 14,
Figure 1).
Cultural factors (1, Figure 1) denote a set of beliefs
and norms that are both consciously and subconsciously held by any individual in the given
society11. In the context of this paper, this refers
to the principles/customs held by CHW in rural
regions of Africa. Culture diversity between developing and developed countries can be observed
based on ‘‘Individualism versus Collectivism’’,
‘‘Power distance’’, and ‘‘Masculinity versus Femininity’’12. That is, developed countries such as
Europe and U.S.A. are driven by individualist
approaches whereas developing countries are concerned with collectivist strategies. Power distance
reflects the way society distributes, shares, and
enforces the power among its members13. Power
holders in high power distance cultures such as
Africa are much more comfortable with a larger
status differential than low power distance cultures.
Additionally, research in African countries shows
preferential treatment towards males over females.
It is worth noting, however, that cultural values
cannot be easily adjusted to conform to any changes
introduced by mHealth. This conformity, therefore,
may have an impact on individual users’ intentions
to adopt mHealth technologies in Africa. The
authors suggest that ethnographic studies should
be performed to capture local cultural dimensions
similar to the work of Kitson (2011)14. In her work
Kitson identified a number of cultural factors
impacting the implementation of the Care2x hospital information system in Tanzania.
Economic factors (2, Figure 1) refer to the direct and
indirect financial opportunities attributable to
CHW in rural areas of developing regions. Without
the necessary economic support for sufficient tools
and resources, technology transfer from developed
regions to Africa becomes very complicated, given
the existing technological infrastructures at many
African locations15. To help ensure that mHealth
solutions are a viable option for African countries a
cost analysis should be performed as advocated by
Schweitzer and Synowiec (2012)16. Increased mobile
coverage in rural areas, including faster network
connectivity, is essential to realising the potential
and scope of mHealth in developing countries.
However, western societies should develop solutions
that operate on commonly used mobile devices in
developing regions. Many mHealth initiatives in
Africa utilise the SMS functionality of mobile
communication systems as a core connectivity
method. The underlying rationale for using this
low-cost functionality is that high-performance
devices are not required to transmit data. For
example, the effects of mobile phone SMS on
antiretroviral treatment adherence in Kenya was
examined17,18. These studies provide empirical evidence that mobile health initiatives can improve
HIV treatment outcomes.
Political factors (3, Figure 1) refer to the governmental agenda of central administrations within
developing regions. The planning and budgeting
process in resource-poor areas are often constrained
by expenditures in previous years. As a result,
developing regions often face difficulty to mobilise
funds for full-scale mHealth implementation as
there may be no reliable or guaranteed governmental financial support for sustaining mHealth initiatives. If mobile technologies are to be successfully
introduced across healthcare within developing
regions, it is an essential that government agencies
provide the necessary support, such as local Ministries of Health and local software industries to
manage and maintain the software artefact.
EHealth Nigeria is an example whereby an organisation collaborates closely with appropriate political
powers to ensure the sustainability of Health
Management Information Systems.
Cognitive factors (4, Figure 1) refer to users’
personal self-beliefs and opinions ability to interact
with mobile technologies in a medical domain. That
is, the degree to which a CHW perceives his or her
ability to use mHealth technologies in the accomplishment of a task19. Cognitive dimensions do play
an integral role in the use of mHealth technologies
in developing countries as it is reported that such
regions face education limitations (computer illiteracy) and a lack of English language skills. Research
VOL. 4 | ISSUE 1 | JANUARY 2015 32
conducted in the health domain of Mozambique
revealed that a limited amount of participants were
computer literate, with only a minority of health
workers at health facilities having the cognitive
ability to interpret health data20. MHealth initiatives promoted by developed countries are often
developed using the English language. This can
hinder the use of mobile technology in medicine due
to the lack of language translation abilities implemented within the software solution. It is therefore
imperative that developers facilitate multi-language
support to enhance the usability of mHealth
technologies. Furthermore, training workshops
should be provided to end users of mHealth
solutions to enhance proficiency with the technology21. The importance of providing training workshops is reflected in the work performed by Baobab
health in Malawi. They offer initial and refresher
training courses to end users of their eHealth
systems arguing that training is essential.
The status quo of the healthcare sector in Africa
is plagued with uncertainty surrounding lack of
resources (financial, technical and human), inadequate training to support health care providers, lack
of technical infrastructure, limited participation in
the development of medical/clinical standards, and
lack of understanding of standards at national
level)9. As a result, extant research on IT in the
less-developed world has been severely limited. To
add to this complexity IT solutions designed in
developed countries have often failed to transfer
effectively to African regions. To ensure that
mHealth is a viable option for the health services
sector in African countries many eHealth initiatives
are attempting to address contextual factors as part
of their development. This perspective piece argues
that it is imperative for developers to encompass
local cultural, economic, political and cognitive
factors to ensure intentions, use and diffusion of
mHealth initiatives.
‘‘The Supporting LIFE project (305292) is funded
by the Seventh Framework Programme for
Research and Technological Development of the
European Commission’’
1. Wu J-H, Shu-Ching W, Li-Min L. Mobile computing
acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: A
structural equation model. International Journal of
Medical Informatics 2007;76:6677.
2. Kjeldskov J, Skov M. Exploring context-awareness
for ubiquitous computing in the healthcare domain.
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 2007;11:54962.
3. Handbook: IMCI management of childhood illness.
2005 edition. Geneva and New York, WHO and
UNICEF, 2005. Available:
4. CORE Group, Save the Children, BASICS and
MCHIP, 2nd Edition 2012. Community Case Management Essentials: Treating Common Childhood
Illnesses in the Community. A Guide for Program
Managers. Washington, D.C. Available: http://www.
5. Mitchell M, Getchell M, Nkaka M, Msellemu D,
Van Esch J, Hedt-Gauthier B. Perceived improvement in integrated management of childhood illness
implementation through use of mobile Technology:
qualitative evidence from a pilot study in Tanzania.
Journal of Health Communication 2012;17:11827.
6. Mechael PN. The case for mHealth in developing
countries. Innovations 2009;4:10318.
7. Davis FD Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,
and user acceptance of information technology. MIS
Quarterly 1989;13:31940.
8. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User
acceptance of information technology: toward a
unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003;27:42578.
9. Avgerou C. Information systems in developing
countries: a critical research review. J Inf technol
10. Fjerrnestad, J, Hiltz, SR. Experimental Studies Of
Group Decision Support Systems: An Assessment
Of Variables Studied And Methodology. In: Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE 1997: 4565.
11. Adler NJ. International Dimensions of Organizational
Behavior. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing 2002.
12. Hofstede G. Culture’s Consequences: International
Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills
CA: Sage 1980.
13. Al-Abdul-Gader, AH. Managing Computer Based
Information Systems In Developing Countries: A
cultural perspective, IGI Global 1999.
VOL. 4 | ISSUE 1 | JANUARY 2015 33
14. Kitson N. A Convergence of Cultures and Strategies
to Improve Electronic Health Record Implementation
within a Tanzanian Clinical Environment. University
of Alberta 2011.
15. Jimenez-Castellanos, A, de la Calle, G, AlonsoCalvo, R, Hussein, R, Maojo, V. Accessing advanced
computational resources in Africa through cloud
computing. 25th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS), 2012: 14.
16. Schweitzer J, Synowiec C. The economics of eHealth
and mHealth. Journal of Health Communication
17. Lester, RT, Mills, EJ, Kariri, A, Ritvo, P, Chung, M,
Jack, W, et al. ‘‘The HAART cell phone adherence
trial (WelTel Kenya1): a randomized controlled trial
protocol.’’ Trials 2009 Sep 22; 10:87.
18. Douglas G, Gadabu O, Joukes S, Mumba S, McKay
M, Ben-Smith A, Jahn A, Schouten E, Lewis Z, van
Oosterhout J. Using touchscreen electronic medical
record systems to support and monitor national
scale-up of antiretroviral therapy in Malawi. PLoS
medicine 2010;7:e1000319.
19. Compeau DR, Higgins CA. Computer self-efficacy:
development of a measure and initial test. MIS
Quarterly 1995;19:189211.
20. Braa J, Macome E, Mavimbe JC, Nhampossa JL, da
Costa JL, Manave A, Sito´i A. A study of the actual
and potential usage of information and communication technology at district and provincial levels in
mozambique with a focus on the health sector. The
Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 2001;2:129.
21. Ka¨llander, K, Tibenderana, J, Akpogheneta, O,
Strachan, D, Hill, Z, Ten Asbroek, AH, Conteh, L,
Kirkwood, B, Meek, S. Mobile health (mHealth)
approaches and lessons for increased performance
and retention of community health workers in
low-and middle-income countries: a review. J Med
Internet Res 2013; 15: e17.
VOL. 4 | ISSUE 1 | JANUARY 2015 34